Appeal 2007-2028
Application 11/058,147
Appellants do not argue this ground of rejection in the Appeal Brief,
the only reference to claims 15 and 16 being that “claims 2-18 stand or fall
with claim 1” (Br. 10).
Claims 15 and 16 together require the claimed litter composition to
have an encapsulated fragrance. Stanislowski discloses that, in animal
litters, “fragrances . . . to mask odors can be used. The fragrances can be
uncoated . . . or encapsulated” (Stanislowski col. 6, ll. 23-25). We agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill, recognizing that Benjamin’s
absorbent material was to be used in a litter box, would have also recognized
the desirability of including Stanislowski’s odor-masking encapsulated
fragrance in the absorbent material. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 15 and 16.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 14, 17, and 18 as
obvious over Benjamin.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-9, 11-13, 19, and 20
as obvious over Benjamin and Cowan.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as obvious over
Benjamin, Cowan, and Ito.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16 as obvious
over Benjamin and Stanislowski.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013